Facts are not copyrightable, just their presentation. So I don’t think that it’s possible to say that it’s impossible to summarize material. A court is going to say that some form of summary is legal.
On the other hand, simply taking material and passing it through an AI and producing the same material as the source — which would be an extreme case — is definitely copyright infringement. So there’s no way that a court is going to just say that any output from an AI is legal.
We already have criteria for what’s infringing, whether a work is “derivative” or not.
My bet is that a court is going to tell Brave “no”, and that it’s up to Brave to make sure that any given work it produces isn’t derivative, using existing case law. Like, that’s a pain for AI summary generators, but it kind of comes with the field.
Maybe it’s possible to ask a court for clearer and harder criteria for what makes a work derivative or not, if we expect to be bumping up against the line, but my guess is that summary generators aren’t very impacted by this compared to most AI and non-AI uses. If the criteria get shifted to be a little bit more permissive (“you can have six consecutive words identical to the source material”, say) or less permissive (“you can have three consecutive words identical to the source material”), my guess is that it’s relatively easy for summary generators to update and change their behavior, since I doubt that people are keeping these summaries around.
Facts are not copyrightable, just their presentation. So I don’t think that it’s possible to say that it’s impossible to summarize material. A court is going to say that some form of summary is legal.
On the other hand, simply taking material and passing it through an AI and producing the same material as the source — which would be an extreme case — is definitely copyright infringement. So there’s no way that a court is going to just say that any output from an AI is legal.
We already have criteria for what’s infringing, whether a work is “derivative” or not.
My bet is that a court is going to tell Brave “no”, and that it’s up to Brave to make sure that any given work it produces isn’t derivative, using existing case law. Like, that’s a pain for AI summary generators, but it kind of comes with the field.
Maybe it’s possible to ask a court for clearer and harder criteria for what makes a work derivative or not, if we expect to be bumping up against the line, but my guess is that summary generators aren’t very impacted by this compared to most AI and non-AI uses. If the criteria get shifted to be a little bit more permissive (“you can have six consecutive words identical to the source material”, say) or less permissive (“you can have three consecutive words identical to the source material”), my guess is that it’s relatively easy for summary generators to update and change their behavior, since I doubt that people are keeping these summaries around.